Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Re: PAvPP

Expand Messages
  • Ken Durkin
    ... From: Paul Anderson To: Sent: 29 March 2000 20:58 Subject: [John_Lit] Re: John 6:1 (was:
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 4, 2000
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
      Sent: 29 March 2000 20:58
      Subject: [John_Lit] Re: John 6:1 (was: Chapter 21)

      > johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
      > >Paul, I've read and enjoyed your demolition of Parker, and I've a few
      > >comments on it later. If there's a stone you don't leave it unturned.
      > Thanks, Ken. I'll be polishing it up for submission to a journal, so any
      > comments will be appreciated.
      > PA

      Parker's article was written so long ago it hardly seems worthwhile spending
      so much energy refuting it point by point for publication. One problem with
      it is the equal weight he gives to various reasons for doubting BD=JZ. By
      tackling it in sequence you risk falling into the same trap. If I were
      writing a critique I'd distinguish between his strong and weak arguments and
      then deal with the stronger ones first, and I would reduce the length to
      about one third of yours. I would probably start with your a,b,c, comments
      at the end of point 21.

      Parker dismisses the early death of JZ theory and mentions Paul's reference
      in Galatians, but the Marcan story which assumes both disciples were
      martyred, and which is not refuted in Matthew, contradicts the tradition
      that JZ lived a long life in Ephesus. That coupled with the evidence of a
      late death in Jn21 with no hint that the BD was martyred, casts doubt on
      JZ=BD. Wouldn't you agree?

      Ken Durkin
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.